Menu

Wild, but not at heart

Wild incessantly goes back and forth and back and forth in time, a technique that in this case demonstrates a lack of confidence within the director. A lack of confidence in the very strong true story at hand, had it been told properly, or a lack of confidence in himself and what he is doing. Either way, another mishandled film, a film that gets in the way of the story.

What of that story let to shine through combines with Reese Witherspoon’s very good performance to yield a film I mildly recommend. Wild is a good movie, but could have been and should have been much more powerful. If this is the type of movie you like, you should like it. Stay tuned during the end credits for slides of the real Cheryl Strayed. 6/10

5 thoughts on “Wild, but not at heart”

You really thought the back and forth time travel was a detriment? It’s exactly how the source book is written. Plus I thought Cheryl (the character) had more relatable motives than the guy in Into the Wild, who just seemed to be mysteriously allergic to civilization.

It’s hard to make movies this good cheaply, and it was a very quick, very cheap shoot, much like the director’s previous Dallas Buyer’s Club. But I’m all for trying. If you can do these things at a lower cost than a single episode of Game of Thrones it’s a noble goal.

Thanks for your comments. I thought the story was powerful, but not powerfully told. With material this good, a more linear narrative is the best way to deliver on the promise of its content. Nonetheless, I still recommend it, if but marginally.